jason_paloalto said:

The GIP arm is doing real work rather than padding the label.

Dose-response modeling for tirzepatide: Emax model fitting to the STEP/SURMOUNT dose-finding data shows:

Semaglutide: ED50 ≈ 0.6mg, Emax ≈ -18%, Hill coefficient ≈ 1.3
Tirzepatide: ED50 ≈ 6mg, Emax ≈ -25%, Hill coefficient ≈ 1.5

Clinical implication: most patients achieve >80% of maximal response by the mid-range dose (1.7mg sema, 10mg tirz). Going to the maximum dose provides diminishing returns — possibly not worth the additional side effect burden for some patients. Individualize dosing based on response vs tolerability.

Following on from NurseAsh_DET — and this may be the naive question:

Whether anyone has held 10mg long term rather than climbing, and what happened over the following year?

quinn_sf said:

Dose-response modeling for tirzepatide: Emax model fitting to the STEP/SURMOUNT dose-finding data shows: Semaglutide: ED50 ≈ 0.6mg, Emax ≈ -18%, Hill…

Coming at quinn_sf’s question from a different direction. The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions. Agreeing that something happens says nothing about whether it happens enough to act on.

Reporting back.

Reporting back after another eight months at the same dose. Still losing slowly, no new side effects, and no reason I can find to climb further.

PedsEndoPhilly said:

The mechanism and the magnitude are separate questions.

True, though the ladder is longer and that is not a neutral detail — six dose steps means six opportunities to stall on the way up, and plenty of people never reach the dose the headline number came from.